[ad#inline-ad-in-article]
Ignatius of Antioch
The simple answer: NO
What is generally accepted and agreed upon by all Christian professing religions of today is that the Lord Jesus Christ established a church in the first century when He was still here on earth. This church was founded and headed by the Lord Jesus Christ and of course would be called after Him, the church of Christ. He had a few helpers primary of whom are the Apostles.
Most Catholics believe that their church, the Roman Catholic church is the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. They use all sorts of so-called “sources” and even claim history attest to the validity of their claim. They claim that since the Roman Catholic church is 2000 years old, they can only be the only church which had a direct connection with the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ.
My own little research did not yield a single document that would help proves this claim to be correct. What I am comfortable in accepting based on what I’ve learned from my church, the Iglesia ni Cristo, is that the Apostles foretold of a turning back of the church built by the Lord Jesus Christ. So, even if the Catholic church may turn out to have a direct connection with the church built by the Lord Jesus Christ, it bears no resemblance to the original church preached by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles.
What is a “church”
I am not a minister and this article is not meant to indoctrinate the reader of the teachings of my church. All this is is a “common sense” take on the question: Is the Roman Catholic church the church built by the Lord Jesus Christ? With that said the following definitions gives us a clearer idea as to what the word mean.
The first paragraph of Colossians 1:18 clearly defined the meaning of “church”.
He is also head of the body, the church;
Webster.com defines the word church this way:
3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers:
Clearly then, the church is the “body” or society whose head is the Lord Jesus Christ. And because the church is the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is rightly called after Him, the body of Christ or the Church of Christ.
So, the church build by Christ, headed by Christ cannot be called by any other name. For by doing so one would be disregarding the importance of the name and would lose that connection to Christ.
Who first used the name “catholic”
What about the Catholic church? When it first come into being? The Catholic church came into being when a group of me collectively called “church fathers” of a began calling themselves catholic.
The first one to use the word was Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. By this date, all of the Apostles were already dead and the writing of scriptures had ended. The writings of Ignatius can then be safely and rightfully called “unbiblical”. The first known usage of the name “Catholic Church” was first attributed to Policarp in 155 AD. The list goes on.
Suffice it to say, the Catholic church is not the church mentioned in the bible.
[ad#inline-ad-in-article]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
FROM RESBAK:”As far as worshipping the Lord Jesus, please read your bible and look for when God commanded that the Lord Jesus is to be worshipped.”
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11
“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
that at the NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE SHOULD BEND, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father.”
BUT BEFORE THAT, IN COLOSSIANS 1:15 IT IS SAID THAT JESUS IS -
“He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of all creation.”
AND WHEN WE GO BACK TO HEBREWS 1:6
“And again, when he leads the FIRST BORN into the world, he says: “Let all the angels of God WORSHIP him.”
YOU SEE,IT IS ONLY ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHO HAS A TRUE & DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES.
IF YOU ARE FAIR-MINDED,YOU HAVE TO READ MORE RATHER THAN DELVE ON TO THE PREJUDICES OF INC HURLED AGAINST THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
Funny how you quote verses, then use your own interpretation to justify your claim when the same verses you quoted contradicts your claim. Let me point it out to you.
You say that Jesus is God because “HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD”, “image” of God, etc. Except you missed this part “of the invisible God”. You see, God has no physical form like the Lord Jesus. God is also eternal, whereas Jesus was “FIRST BORN”.
FROM RESBAK:”You said “God the Incarnate Son”. This statement has no biblical basis whatsoever.”
ISAIAH 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him IMMANUEL.”
MATTHEW 1:23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “GOD WITH US.”
JOHN 1:14
“And the WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s ONLY SON, full of grace and truth.”
1 TIMOTHY 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
THE PROBLEM WITH INC IS THEY JUST CHERRY-PICK SOME VERSES TO SUIT AND JUSTIFY THEIR BELIEFS AND YET NEGLECTING OR IGNORING OTHER VERSES.
Concerning the “meaning” of the name “Jesus“. You cannot use the meaning of the name to justify your belief that Jesus is God. Please do a research on why Hebrew names have meanings. See also “Isra El, Dani El, Ishma El” and others.
With regards to cherry picking. You’re wrong. If you believe that, then the Lord Jesus also cherry picked.
FROM RESBAK:”If the Father is God, and the Son is “God the Incarnate Son” then you have two Gods. A totally non biblical and unchristian doctrine.”
So resbak,the problem is you are investing only on the 1 TIMOTHY 2:5 argument for your belief that Jesus was just a man.
BUT have you read this?
“I am the LORD, this is my name; MY GLORY I give to no other..” – ISAIAH 42:8
AND CORRELATE IT WITH JOHN 17:5 -
“Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the GLORY that I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.”
IT SAYS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN!
NOW IS THERE ANY MAN IN HISTORY WHO ALREADY EXISTED EVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN?
The belief of the Iglesia ni Cristo is that Jesus is man. He said so himself:” Jesus said to them… But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. .
The verses you quoted does not say anything about Jesus being God.
No. Please read the creation of the first man.
FROM RESBAK:”If you interpret the verses you quoted as saying the Holy Spirit is also God(in particular Heb 9:14), then you need to explain why God who is everlasting and all knowing and omnipresent didn’t know that the Holy Spirit is also God.”
the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament. If we only consider John chapters 14, 15, and 16, the evidence is overwhelming. This is not to mention the abundance of examples we could cite throughout Scripture, both Old (in seed form) and New Testaments. Let’s take John 14:16-17 to start. Jesus says,
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”
In John 15:26-27, Jesus says,
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.”
And in John 16:7-15, Jesus makes it very plain,
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
Among the many texts revealing the Holy Spirit’s divinity, perhaps the most plain and unmistakable are found in Hebrews. First, we’ll examine Hebrews 3:7-10:
“Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts; they have not known my ways.’”
Notice the Holy Spirit is synonymous with God himself. In Hebrews 10:15-17, the reference is even more clear:
“And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more.”
The Holy Spirit is revealed here to be both a person and divine. He is depicted as “bear[ing] witness,” “establish[ing] a covenant,” is referred to as “the Lord,” “puts [his] laws on [our] hearts,” and even forgives sins.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU CONFUSE THE TRINITY TO BE 3 GODS IN ALL WHEN ITS NOT.
You did not respond to the the point I raised. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God like the Father, then the Father being allknowing should have known them(the Son and the Holy Spirit) as Gods. He did not.
The truth is irrefutable, there is only ONE God the Father in heaven. Anything that is different to this such as the trinity doctrine is extra biblical and unchristian.
FROM RESBAK:”You said “God the Incarnate Son”. This statement has no biblical basis whatsoever.”
Because you REJECT that the “WORD BECAME flesh”(JOHN 1:14)as NOT literal! But when you READ THE COMPLETE VERSE,it states:
“and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the FATHER’s ONLY SON, full of grace and truth.”
You see,the Father’s ONLY SON was being referred to as the “WORD”.
And there are a lot of biblical passages that the WORD was JESUS.
The letters of Paul continue the identification of Jesus with God’s Wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 is the most clear: Christ is explicitly identified as “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Elsewhere in 1 Cor. of relevance:
Wisdom 1:4: Wisdom existed before all things….
1 Corinthians 2:7: …wisdom that God predestined before the ages….
Wisdom 1:6: To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed?
1 Corinthians 2:10: God revealed these things to us….
Wisdom 1:10: …he has given [wisdom] to those who love him.
1 Corinthians 2:9: …which God has prepared for those who love him.
Wisdom 1:15: [Wisdom] has built an eternal foundation among men….
1 Corinthians 3:10: …as a wise architect I laid down a foundation….
Wisdom 2:5: Gold is tested in the fire….
1 Corinthians 3:12-13: And if any man builds upon the foundation with gold or silver or precious stones…, it is to be revealed in fire.
Colossians 1:15-18 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
This passage is full of allusions to the Wisdom literature. Note the following parallels:
Colossians 1:15a He is the image of the invisible God…
Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 (Wisdom is) a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
Colossians 1:15b …the firstborn over all creation.
You see,[THIS PART EDITED. SPAM REMOVED]. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL.
You quoted a lot of verses and yet not one proved your previous claim that Jesus was the “God the Incarnate Son”.
Think for a moment. A son has a father, agree? If the Father is God, and the Son is “God the Incarnate Son” then you have two Gods. A totally non biblical and unchristian doctrine.
FROM RESBAK:”What is one teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles that the Catholic church rejected and exchanged for another doctrine? That God the Father is the ONLY true God.”
Is that the only thing your investing on your justification?
Then what to you is the Holy Spirit?
Why does the Holy Spirit have attributes that ONLY God has?
For example,the Holy Spirit is
1. EVERLASTING (Heb. 9:14),
2. ALL KNOWING (1 Cor. 2:10) and
3. OMNIPRESENT (Ps. 139:7)
HOW THEN YOU CAN INC RECONCILE THESE PASSAGES AS OPPOSE TO THE CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRINITY?
THE ONLY INC OPTION IS EITHER REJECT IT OR AVOID IT OR GO TO THE FIRST CHARGE OF MAKING ANOTHER DOCTRINE.
If you interpret the verses you quoted as saying the Holy Spirit is also God(in particular Heb 9:14), then you need to explain why God who is everlasting and all knowing and omnipresent didn’t know that the Holy Spirit is also God.
FROM README:”How can be the Catholic church the 1st century church established by christ if they can only traced back its history not the history of the doctrines inside the CC? ”
The Church holds that, by the grace of Christ, it is “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God should be made known” (Eph. 3:10) since God the Incarnate Son handed revelation on, not by writing a book, but by choosing human beings called apostles to preserve his gospel.
To these apostles he granted nothing less than the power to teach authoritatively in his name and assured them “He who listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). Part of this authoritative teaching is preserved in Scripture, part of it is preserved by “word of mouth” (2 Thess. 2:15). All is conserved by the interpretive authority of the bishops who were apostolically empowered to rebuke false teaching (1 Tim. 1:3), to “guard the good deposit” that was entrusted to them (2Tim. 1:14), and to appoint others to do the same (Titus 1:5) in an unbroken succession down to the present time. Thus it is that God has not left us orphans. He has given us himself as our Father and the Church as our Mother.
You said “God the Incarnate Son”. This statement has no biblical basis whatsoever. I’m sure you’ll come up with writings from people other than the Apostles. If you do, you’re just admitting that your doctrines are extra-biblical and therefore un-christian.
Resbak,then why charge that the Church has apostasized? That is the main force where INC gets their justification on attacking the Catholic church!
What exactly do you mean by “that apostasy did not happen just because the coming has not happened yet.” – Your statement is a classic case of private interpretation of scriptues!
Because they did.
Here’s a proof of that. A very simple yet profound proof of the apostasy. What is one teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles that the Catholic church rejected and exchanged for another doctrine? That God the Father is the ONLY true God. I know you respond with all sorts of rationalization but the fact remains, the god of the Catholic church is different from the God of the Apostles let alone the Lord Jesus.
FROM READ ME:” do they know what is the meaning of apostasy that they say did not happen?? tsk. tsk.”
My dear,could you please read the prophecy of Paul in 2 Thess. 2:2–3? It says:
” Do not be quickly shaken in mind or excited . . . to the effect that the DAY OF THE LORD has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day WILL NOT come, UNLESS REBELLION [Greek: apostasia] COMES FIRST”
IF THE REBELLION/APOSTASY HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE,THEN WHY IS IT THAT THE DAY OF THE LORD HAS NOT COME YET?
IT IS VERY PLAIN TO SEE IN PAUL’S PROPHECY THAT THE DAY OF THE LORD’S COMING WOULD ONLY TAKE PLACE UNLESS THE REBELLION COMES FIRST.
If you are charging the Catholic Church for Apostasy,then you are charging Jesus Christ a LIAR since He promised that:
” “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell WILL NOT PREVAIL against it” (Matt. 16:18).
In other passages, Christ teaches the same truth. In Matthew 28:20 he said,
“I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS EVEN UNTIL the end of the world.”
And in John 14:16, 18 he said,
“And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, TO BE WITH YOU FOREVER… I will not leave you desolate.”
If YOU & Iglesia members accept the apostasy doctrine, they make Christ a liar. Since you believe Jesus Christ is not a liar, you are IGNORING what Christ promised, and YOUR church’s doctrine CONTRADICTS Scriptures.
You just answered your own question. You said “IF THE REBELLION/APOSTASY HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE,THEN WHY IS IT THAT THE DAY OF THE LORD HAS NOT COME YET?”
Not because it has not come yet while we still live doesn’t mean it is not coming. If you know or remember, the Apostles themselves during their time said that the coming is near, at the door. That was 2000 years ago so it is presumptuous to say that apostasy did not happen just because the coming has not happened yet.
http://readmeinc.blogspot.com/2010/01/catholic-church-is-church-of-christ-in.html
http://readmeinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/original-church.html
How can be the Catholic church the 1st century church established by christ if they can only traced back its history not the history of the doctrines inside the CC? do they know what is the meaning of apostasy that they say did not happen?? tsk. tsk.
Poor souls, they were blinded by the MOTHER OF HARLOTS! and The torturer who murdered many hundred year ago.
FROM RESBAK:”Show me a teaching of the Iglesia Ni Cristo where it states that Bro Felix Manalo founded the church.”
IT IS NOT INC’S TEACHING BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS, YOUR CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO – THAT IS THE VERY REASON WHY YOU CELEBRATE EVERY 27TH OF JULY OF EVERY YEAR YOUR FOUNDING ANNIVERSARY.
Wrong again. The Iglesia Ni Cristo does not celebrate a “founding anniversary”.
You said “IT IS NOT INC’S TEACHING”. Good! now you know.
FROM RESBAK:”The first one to use the word was Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. By this date, all of the Apostles were already dead and the writing of scriptures had ended. The writings of Ignatius can then be safely and rightfully called “unbiblical”.”
Then how on earth did the written scriptures BY THE APOSTLES were passed on? By whom? You see that is where the problem lies if you do not believe in APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION!
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is KNOWN TODAY as the BISHOPS, who are the SUCCESSORS of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops’ role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
How can you say the writings of Ignatius and the Church fathers be rightfully called “unbiblical” when they are NOT in a sense putting up their own gospel BUT TESTIFYING & COMMENTING on Scripture and the unwritten apostolic Tradition AND PLACED THEM INTO WRITING. Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch after the apostles and witness to Peter, Barnabas, and Paul.
There were people other than you’re “church fathers” in those early centuries so don’t assume your Catholic church was the only religion back then. And actually, there was not a Catholic church in the time of Ignatius. Please do a research on your own church.
The Catholic “church fathers” were not the successors of the Apostles. They were the ones called by the Apostles as wolves in sheeps clothing.
AS St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch SAID: “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop . . . Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude (of faithful) also be, even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Smyrneans, 8).
RESBAK,CAN YOU PROVIDE ME EARLY ACCOUNTS OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTERS AS OPPOSE TO THE ABOVE TO PROVE THAT YOUR CHURCH EVEN EXISTED FOR CENTURIES.
“St.” Ignatius is not an Apostle, nor is he a contemporary, student, confidant, etc of any Apostle. Any claims to the contrary are dubious at best. His teachings are directly contradictory to those of the Apostles and should be considered as such.
RESBAK,one of the marks of the TRUE CHURCH is being APOSTOLIC(Eph. 2:19–20).
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, SINCE THE FIRST century (WAS THERE A CHURCH CALLED IGLESIA NI CRISTO IN THE PHILIPPINES DURING THAT TIME?), there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.
Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these FIRST Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE TO ME THAT AN IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTER WAS PROCLAIMING THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST IN THE FIRST CENTURY IN ANY PART IF THE WORLD.
If the Apostles were the first leaders of the Catholic church, would you thing the Catholic church would be teachings and upholding teachings of the Apostles? Are they? Let check and see.
Apostle Paul: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Iglesia ni Cristo: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Roman Catholic Church: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
…
true God from true God,
Nicean Creed(not even from the bible)
See? The Catholic church does not follow and obey the teachings of the Apostles. There is no way the RCC is apostolic.
I could go on and respond to the rest of your comment but what for?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”When was the church before 1914? Please read what the Apostles foretell before they died.”
Even if the phrase “church of Christ” did appear in the Bible, it would not help Iglesia’s case. Before Manalo started his church, there were already groups calling themselves “the Church of Christ.” There are several Protestant denominations that call themselves Church of Christ and use exactly the same argument. Of course, they aren’t the true Church for the same reason Iglesia isn’t—because they were not founded by Christ.
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1); and, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4). By falling away from the Church, members of Iglesia are committing precisely the kind of apostasy of which they accuse the Catholic Church.
The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:1: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Was Felix Manalo a true prophet? Is his church the “true Church?” If we test the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo, the answer is apparent. His total apostasy doctrine is in flat contradiction to Christ’s teaching. There is no way that Iglesia ni Cristo can be the true Church of Christ.
I’ve explained this to you in another response. You seem to be going around in circles most of the time asking the same questions over and over.
The name is just one test in determining the true Church of Christ. The church built and headed by Christ is named after him, thus Church of Christ. The Catholic church failed this first test.
You quoted 1 Timothy concerning doctrines of demons. In verse 3 two doctrines of demons are enumerated, and both are practiced by the Catholic church.
1 John 4:1 actually refers to the Catholic church. How can the true church teach the trinity when it is against God’s truth.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Bro Felix Y Manalo, or any minister or member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo ever claim that Bro Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. There is not a teaching in the INC that says that.” UNQUOTE
THEN YOU ARE MISLED. YOUR CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO IN 1914. HE WAS A CATHOLIC BEFORE HE FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH. RESEARCH ON HIS LIFE AND YOU’LL BE IN FOR A SHOCK. I THINK THIS INFORMATION IS BEING KEPT AWAY BY YOUR VERY OWN MINISTERS!
IF YOU SAY INC WAS FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST,IT IS VERY EASY TO CLAIM THAT SINCE THE WORD “CHURCH OF CHRIST” IS INDEED IN THE BIBLE BUT IF YOU CHECK ON THE VERY EXISTENCE OF YOUR CHURCH VIA HISTORY,I DON’T THINK IT WOULD GO BACK AS SEVERAL CENTURIES.
I CHALLENGE YOU: HOW OLD IS THE CHURCH OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO? BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCES THAT INDEED YOUR CHURCH HAS BEEN THERE FOR THOUSAND OF CENTURIES.
You said “YOUR CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO IN 1914″. Where’d you get this? Show me a teaching of the Iglesia Ni Cristo where it states that Bro Felix Manalo founded the church.